Wednesday, September 28, 2016

African elephants are in trouble. Habitat fragmentation, in part due to urbanization,
desertification and climate change, has constricted their range, leaving some
isolated elephant groups vulnerable to local extinction events. But it’s the
illegal slaughter of elephants for their ivory tusks that’s been the primary
factor leading this iconic species toward its final demise.

Save the Elephants - Veronica May - Age 5

Poachers are now killing elephants
at a rate faster than they can reproduce. The Wildlife Conservation Society
recently released a scientific study which suggested that it may take a century
for African forest elephants to recover from poaching experienced just since
2002. That’s despite the global
community having come together in 1989 to ban the international ivory trade
after elephant populations plummeted from 1.3 million to just 600,000 (see:“’A Good Day for Elephants’: Ban on Domestic Ivory Trade Passes,” CommonDreams.org, September 11, 2016). But demand for ivory fashion trinkets is
insatiable, and so the extermination of elephants for their “white gold”
continues.There are probably less than
400,000 African elephants now surviving in the wild.

Many Canadians were likely aware
that it has been illegal to buy and sell African elephant “blood ivory” for
some time. Most, however, probably
didn’t know that in many parts of the world, active domestic markets for ivory
have been allowed to persist. These
domestic markets offer poachers a legal veneer to ultimately supply a
stubbornly robust black market with illegal ivory. The U.K. Guardian reports that illegal ivory
tusks can sell for as much as $1,100 a kilogram in China – a nation that
recently vowed to shut down its domestic ivory market (see: “Who Buys Ivory? You’d Be Surprised,” National Geographic, August 12, 2015).

But not all nations are in
agreement that domestic markets should be closed. Earlier this month, at a meeting of the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a motion to close
domestic markets was adopted through a near unanimous vote. Only 4 nations refused to be a part of the
international consensus. South Africa and Namibia, two African countries with
large elephant populations, were joined by Japan in their call for continued,
regulated domestic markets.

As someone concerned with the loss
of global biodiversity, and especially of megafauna, I’ve often been asked why
should Canadians care about what happens to rhinos, lions and tigers – animals
that live far away, in lands not under the control of the Canadian
government. Since Canada can’t decide
what happens in far-off places like Kenya or Gabon, why get upset over the
extinction of elephants?

Clearly, what Canada does,
matters. Canada can choose to be a
leader and use its influence on the international stage to work toward
positive, sustainable outcomes. Or, as
has so often been the case lately on a wide range of international
environmental issues, from abandoning our climate change commitments in the
Kyoto Accord, to removing ourselves from the international treaty on
desertification – Canada can continue to be an impediment to progress.

The Convention on the International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) COP17 conference
gets underway in Johannesburg, South Africa today. It’s hoped that the IUCN’s
motion to close domestic ivory markets will spur CITES towards legally binding
action. Canada hasn’t yet stated what
position it will take at CITES.

Canadians will be putting pressure on
the Trudeau government to be a leader in the fight to save elephants. In solidarity with over 130 communities
around the world, citizens in Sudbury will be taking to the street today, as
part of the Global March for Elephants, Rhinos and Lions (see: “March Against Extinction,” (see “2016 March Locations”), Global March For Elephants And Rhinos). The march starts at
noon at the Elgin Street entrance of the Sudbury Community Arena.

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own and should not be considered consistent with the policies and/or positions of the Green Parties of Canada and Ontario)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star as, "Saving world's elephants important to Sudburians," in print and online as "Sudbury column: March today for world's elephants" September 24, 2016.

Friday, September 16, 2016

Toleration – it’s a great thing. Maybe it’s even a Canadian value. But it’s not always ok to be tolerant,
especially when what you are tolerating is something odious. The Conservative Party of Canada is a
big-tent national political party. It
is, for the most part, a pretty tolerant party.
Perhaps it is a little too tolerant towards those who promote their own
brand of intolerance. And that’s a
problem for Conservatives.

Case in point. In any
other political party, an MP who expressed a clearly homophobic point of view –
the desire to remove certain legal rights from people based only on their
sexual orientation – well, that would be intolerable. I can tell you that if a member of my own
party were to express that kind of homophobic nonsense to me, I would be the
first in line to petition my Party’s council to have that individual removed as
a member. Taking rights away from an
identifiable group of people through discriminatory legislation – to me, that’s
intolerable. It’s borderline hate speech
to advocate that sort of thing.

This past week, Conservative MP Brad Trost published a meme
on Twitter in which he expressed that marriage is the union between a man and a
woman, and that he would “fight for you” because he’s “100% CONSERVATIVE”. I didn’t realize that being a homophobe was a
specific criterion to prove one’s Con cred, but since I expect that many
members of Trost’s own party were also unaware of that qualification, I’ll
leave that aside for now.

What’s problematic here is that Trost – who isn’t just an
MP, but also someone who has declared that he is running for the leadership of
his Party – is actually in a unique position of power whereby he has the
ability to introduce legislation and debate in parliament the merits of his
homophobic screed. Should he ever become
leader of his Party, he may one day end up as Canada’s Prime Minister –
although even I think that’s a long shot.

Let me be clear, Brad: Marriage in Canada is *NOT* limited
to unions between a man and a woman. Marriage has as much to do with gender of the two individuals who engage in that act as their ethnicity or religion - which is to say, marriage has nothing at all to do with gender.

Can you imagine seeing a similar ad which reads, "Marriage is the union of one white person and another white person"?

I understand that the media may have had some questions for
Mr. Trost along the lines of, “Does this homophobic meme mean that you’ll be
trying to change Canada’s laws and maybe even the Constitution and remove the
marriage rights that tens of thousands of Canadians currently enjoy just
because you’re a homophobe?”

MP Brad Trost (Saskatoon-University), homophobe

The CBC reports Trost’s campaign manager’s response: “[Mike]
Patton [Trost’s campaign spokesperson] said Trost doesn't agree with the way
parliament voted on same-sex marriage, but because a majority of MPs voted in
favour of the change, he wouldn't take steps to reverse it.” (see: “Conservativeleadership hopeful Brad Trost draws ire for same-sex marriage ad,” the CBC,
September 15, 2016). This apparently after an earlier answer flirted with the use of the Constitution's "Notwithstanding" clause.

Apparently, despite the meme, Trost doesn’t have the courage
of his own pathetic convictions to pursue a change to our laws. By posting this meme, it seems that he just
wants others to think he has the courage to stand up for his own pathetic,
homophobic convictions.

So, he’s not just a homophobe – he’s also apparently an
unprincipled one.

And he’s running for leader of the Conservative Party. So he’s accepting campaign contributions to
produce ads which are homophobic in nature in order to raise awareness about
his campaign – even though these ads are about issues which he lacks the
courage of his own pathetic convictions to pursue. I can’t help but wonder what Trost’s
financial backers must think of this strategy – and whether it’s a good use of
their money.

Members of the Conservative Party of Canada: are you really
OK with this? Do you believe that this
is a wise use of public funds? Do you
agree that it’s ok for someone in your Party to promote homophobia through
publicly-subsidized ads – in the midst of a leadership campaign, no less?

This would not be tolerated in any other mainstream Canadian
political party. Why is it ok that it’s
happening in yours? Please,
Conservatives – find the courage of your own convictions and in the name of
tolerance, get rid of Brad Trost’s brand of intolerance – while do all of us
Canadian taxpayers a favour.

(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policy and/or positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)Note: an earlier version of this blogpost referred to tax receipts being given to those who donated to Trost's leadership campaign, as well as my opinion that this may have constituted tax-payer funded hate. Since then, it has been brought to my attention that contributions to leadership campaigns at our federal level of government do not receive tax receipts. Even though the Conservative Party will undoubtedly spend money promoting (to a degree) Trosts's leadership through the use of taxpayer subsidized contributions (as the Party will do with all leadership contestants), my original blogpost drew a direct link between tax receipts and leadership campaigning, and was thus in error. The case for taxpayer-funded hate speech remains, but clearly to a much smaller degree. Trost's odiousness among his own Party was the primary emphasis of this post anyway - so I feel that the changes I've made here since its original publication do not detract from that primary thesis.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

I have been asked by a few Green party members and
supporters for my opinion on the current strife within the Green Party over the
recently adopted motion to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS)
movement. I have been relatively silent
on this matter – not out of any particular principle, but rather, I think, out
of great deal of sadness. The very
moment that I read that the BDS motion was being proposed for consideration of
the members, I felt a profound sense of sadness and loss – I knew that the
party I had enjoyed for the past decade was going to soon be over.

Not the Green Party, per se – but the general sense of unity
that the Party has had since I became a member in 2007. Sure, there have been a number of hiccups,
and anyone who is even slightly engaged would realize that prominent Greens
have come and gone, for many reasons.
And certainly, we’ve never quite lived up to our hopes and
expectations. But for the most part, our
aspirations have remained in place – and even those who may have left the Party
for their own reasons, some continue to wish us well because of our shared
values, if not how we have chosen to pursue them.

But the current crisis is different. It is existential. It is polarizing. And it is, in my opinion, one which will severely
wound, if not destroy the Party that I have devoted my limited time and energy
to over the past decade. I know that I
should be angry, but because I feel that I understand both sides, along with
the mushy middle, instead of anger, I feel only regret and sadness. But the fact is, this moment was going to
come anyway – if not now, and if not over BDS, than at some point in the near
future. In fact, viewing this current
crisis as a unique one-off doesn’t do it justice. The crisis is one of many waves that parties
like ours will have to endure over time, or be swept away by. Each wave erodes us a little more, but we
have time to reinforce the base before the next wave strikes. What’s not clear is whether we’ll be
motivated to shore up the base or let the structure collapse when struck by the
next wave.

BDS is the first wave.
It may swamp us all together. How
can I feel anything but a sense of sadness and loss?

Greens and BDS

I understand that some of those who support the BDS movement
likely do so out of a desire to delegitimize the state of Israel as a political
entity, rather than out of a desire to influence Israeli government policy. In
short, I know that there are racists and anti-semites who support BDS. But I also know that BDS is not inherently an
anti-semitic or even an anti-Israeli initiative – and certainly I believe that
the vast majority of Greens who voted for the Party to adopt this initiative as
policy were not and are not anti-semites. Canada's Green Party is not the first Green Party to have signaled its support to the BDS movement, either, as we follow in the footsteps here of both the US and UK Greens.

However, there are some Greens, like British Columbia Green
leader Andrew Weaver, who believe that BDS supporters are an “extremist fringe” (see: "B.C. Green Party considering name change, as federal leader May fires shadow cabinet trio," the Vancouver Sun, September 13, 2016). Of course, language like this shot across the
bow of a national party that just adopted BDS as a policy initiative is, to say
the least, unhelpful and divisive. That
being said, I do agree with part of Weaver’s assessment – BDS and its
supporters are on the fringe of Canadian political culture. But it’s
not an “extremist” fringe in the sense that we often use that term to invoke
the notion of intolerance. BDS is
actually firmly entrenched now on the progressive fringe of Canadian
politics. It’s still a fringe idea – but
it will, in my opinion, trend towards the mainstream over time.

But “fringe” ideas aren’t generally an election winner for
any political party, and B.C. Green leader Weaver, whatever his personal
feelings about BDS actually are, is going into an election next year with the
goal of increasing Green seats in the legislature. That the federal party membership has decided
to champion BDS is, frankly, not helpful to the electoral success of Weaver and
the B.C. Greens, no matter how much Weaver succeeds in separating his party
from the national party with the same colour in its title.

The Existential Debate - Realo v. Fundi

All of this is to say that I understand Weaver’s
frustration, and that of national leader Elizabeth May, who has done more to
mainstream the Green Party than anybody else in the nation, in my opinion. May wants the Greens to be at the table (and
she has succeeded in being present at the table in a big way on a matter of
critical importance to Canada, the Green Party, and the fight against climate
change, by literally occupying a seat on the 10-member Electoral Reform
Committee). May believes, like I do,
that Greens can have more influence inside of our parliamentary institutions
than by remaining on the outside. Why
else would she have moved completely across the country to run in a B.C. riding
a little more suited to Green success than her Nova Scotia home? While it’s true that having to relocate to
Sidney on Vancouver Island might not exactly be a negative experience, I’m
using it as but one example of the personal sacrifices that May has made to
advance the interests of the Green Party.

In the current crisis which has enveloped the Green Party, May
and Weaver find themselves playing familiar roles – perhaps not all that familiar
to Canadian Greens, but roles which those in other Green Parties - or indeed, in other progressive political
parties – would ably recognize. In this
crisis, May and Weaver are “Realos” -
while those who are supporting BDS can be ascribed the role of “Fundis”. These roles were not ones that either side
auditioned for – but they are nevertheless apt descriptions of those who are
willing to find a little compromise if it leads to a little more power and influence,
versus those who believe that values are bedrock and can’t be displaced.

The terms “Realo” and “Fundi” come from the late 20th
Century factional conflicts within the German Green Party. Those conflicts arose over issues other than
BDS – but ultimately, the conflict was one more about power and influence, and
the role of Greens in the national political culture (see: “Fundi,” Wikipedia
entry; and, see: “Fundi v. realos in war for party,” the Guardian, September
21, 2005 – an opinion piece which in part examines the realo/fundi divide then
present in the UK’s Liberal-Democratic party, with a reference to rising realo
star Nick Clegg. As an aside, 11 years later, Lib-Dems must be wondering
whether their pursuit of realo politics proved best for their party – and for
the UK).

The Realo v. Fundi debate is one which all small political
parties are likely to get caught up in – and certainly that’s an almost
absolute truth for political parties who count themselves as “progressive”. Since the very notion of “progression”
involves an orderly forward movement, it’s not as if there should be an
expectation that progressivism will ever stand still. Even the most progressive political parties
will discover that there is always something more worth fighting for, as we
stumble forward in time and towards greater equity and universal human
rights. This progression creates a
challenge for progressive political parties – and can potentially precipitate a
crisis in those parties seeking to move from the edge and into the mainstream.

The Progressive Dilemma

Look, truly progressive political parties will always find
themselves on the edges of mainstream acceptance, simply because they are out
in front of public opinion on progressive issues. By the time that their signature policy
proposals enter mainstream thinking (think here of the Green Party and carbon
pricing, if you’d like), there are other, newer issues appearing on the
progressive radar that will remain outside of the scope of mainstream thinking –
up until they don’t. Progressive parties
like the Greens understand this. Hell,
we keep saying that we want the other parties to adopt our policies. And, eventually they have – and eventually,
they will.

So why the hell are Greens so concerned about
mainstreaming? Yes, it’s nice to have a
voice at the table and to be able to influence public policy from inside the
room. But, frankly, what’s more
important to most Greens? Ditching our values
in the pursuit of power, or remaining true to our values and accepting our role
as outsiders?

Conflict in the NDP

Ultimately, this is an existential question all Green
parties (and all progressive parties) are forced to face. In Canada, the New Democratic Party too is
faced with an existential dilemma, although it would be unfair to characterize
that as a “new” experience for the NDP.
Indeed, that Party has been locked in the constant push-pull of the
values vs. power debate for decades. The
primary difference right now is that those on the value side seem to have a
little more momentum behind their point of view, after the power-seekers
dropped the electoral ball in 2015.

In some ways, we Greens have it easier than the NDP. We’re hung up on BDS, while the NDP has to
deal with the Leap Manifesto, BDS, and, quite likely, a number of other
socio-economic issues that boil down to whether globalized capitalism continues
to make sense in the context of the 21st Century. Of course, the NDP has already ditched their
leader, and they have forced themselves to accept a day of reckoning next year,
when a new leader who will presumably embody the direction desired by the
grassroots is chosen by the members (with the hopes that the new leader will be
able to convince the elected New Democratic caucus to come along for the ride –
something U.K. Labour leader Jeremy Corbynn, elected with a 60% first ballot
mandate by the grassroots, difficult to do).

But then again, the NDP probably has less to lose than
Greens by having this debate. Because
the NDP is an established, mainstream political party, even if incrementally
progressive policies are adopted, if they can be spun the right way, the NDP
will retain a significant portion of its base – and that’s nothing to sneeze
at. For example, the NDP could decide
that it’s time to start the conversation about leaving fossil resources in the
ground (as Leap suggests) and re-examining global trade deals (in keeping with
Leap and anti-capitalist interests), and still present themselves to the
general public as being fairly balanced and level-headed. Debates, of course, will continue to rage
along these fronts, but generally, the NDP could find itself playing the role
of a real progressive political force again, after having largely abandoned
that role in the pursuit of power since Jack Layton took its helm.

Of course, the significant risk to the NDP would be
abdicating any realistic hope of obtaining power – their message will still be
somewhat off-key with Canadians, as progressive messages tend to be, at least
for a while. Of course with a new leader
getting a feel for the job, and with a popular Justin Trudeau leading the
nation from what the mainstream media refers to as a “centrist” point of view,
it’s highly unlikely that the NDP has much of a shot at the golden ring in 2019
anyway.

A Lack of Political Capital with Canadians

Greens, on the other hand, don’t have the political padding
to engage in half-measures after a day of reckoning. While those New Democrats
who end up on the losing side of the Leap debate might be mollified into
accepting the direction of their party with the knowledge that the NDP will
retain a good portion of its’ mainstream political capital, the same can’t be
said of Greens because the Green Party has never had any mainstream political
capital. Greens who find themselves on
the losing side of the current schism will be less inclined to return to the
flock. Greens have always had a tendency
to wander away from the Party when lesser sleights have occurred. And what we’re talking about here is really
more of a cultural rift than a sleight.

Unlike Leap, and even unlike the anti-capitalist movement in
general, BDS tends to be cast in a much starker light. While you can have a sliding scale of
opinions on the role of corporations in democratic processes, it’s hard to find
oneself in the middle on BDS – you’re either in favour of it, or you’re
against. Yes, there is some space left
for a nuanced position – and many tepid supporters of BDS try to inhabit that
space – but for the most part, the mainstream political culture in this nation
(and especially the mainstream media) doesn’t allow for that kind of occupation. Today, the frame around this issue is firmly
in place, and while I expect that the frame will come under pressure and
eventually crack (as it does for all progressive issues), it’s not going to
happen any time soon. BDS is not at a
mainstream tipping point.

I think most Greens get this – even those who support BDS,
and who want to speed Canada up towards that tipping point. They know Canada isn’t there yet. And I think most Greens would concede that if
the Green Party championed BDS, we will advance its cause (and let’s be frank
here – by adopting BDS as Green Party policy, we WILL be its champion, no
matter how little we might want to talk about it – by virtue of the fact that
others will always be talking about it and us, we’ll really have no choice but
to be BDS champions, whether we like it or not). And advancing the cause of BDS is really
anathema to some members of the Party, who view it either as an pseudo
anti-semitic cause, or whose opinions
are informed by the mainstream cultural perception that it’s a pseudo anti-semitic
cause.

Clearly, BDS is a far more divisive issue than Leap, or
Socialism a debate on cultural values.

The Green Party is, therefore, not even remotely well
positioned to handle this discussion that we have found ourselves in the midst
of. I believe that we are about to tear
ourselves apart over BDS because the Green Party itself is at a
crossroads. Do we stay true to our
values at the risk of marginalization, or do we abandon those values and those
who value them in the pursuit of mainstream political acceptance in the pursuit
of a narrower political agenda?

Just How Progressive Does the Green Party Want to Be?

I’m certainly not in a position to answer that question. I
have my own opinions, and in part my opinion is informed by BDS – an initiative
that I tepidly support, but one which I understand to be toxic for the Party at
this time (full disclosure: I voted “Yellow” in the online polling for the
policy that the Ottawa BGM ultimately adopted without revision in August). But I’m just one guy – and a guy who likes to
describe himself as being the most rabidly partisan Green Party member that the
party has. I enjoy being a partisan –
and I think that alone identifies me as the voice of a minority opinion within
the Party. My partisanship alone,
though, doesn’t mean that my values are in any way compromised. It just means that I’m likely to find myself
more on the Realo side of the debate than I am on the Fundi . I continue to believe that it’s better to be
on the inside than the outside of political decision making, and I see real
value in electing more Green MP’s on that basis. But I acknowledge that not all members of the
Party see things that way, and I think that there is merit to the argument that
would leave the Party on the outside.

This current crisis, however, is truly an existential
one. No matter how the crisis is now
resolved, there will be casualties. It
is the nature of existential crises to find victims fallen to friendly fire. While we may all want many of the same
things, those small number of issues that divide us will prove to be fatal at
some level. Either the agitators on one
side or the other will eventually rebel or be expelled, leaving the Party a
wounded reduction of its former self, or the civil strife will consume the
Party completely. This is not an
apocalyptic prediction, by the way. It’s
a constant. This will happen, unless
reconciliation is sought and accepted – and frankly, given the polarizing
nature of BDS, there can be no reconciliation.

Survival Not Assured

For me, there are several questions. The first is, can the Green Party survive
this existential crisis? I suspect it
can, but the wounds are ones which may not heal. I believe the Realos like May and Weaver have
the upper hand, largely because I believe too that the broader base of the
Party who, like me, are mostly disengaged on the issue of BDS for whatever
reason, will not be willing to sacrifice the potential for future electoral
successes to an issue that doesn’t stir us, even if we realize that it
should.

But the Fundis here do have a stronger moral case, and there
must be a good number of them, judging by the strength that the BDS policy
motion received in pre-BGM online polling and at the BGM itself. BDS supporters might be members with a
minority view in the party, but right now that statement isn’t supported by the
evidence. We may never truly know what
the majority opinion is on BDS – but ultimately that’s not important. What is important is that there is a
significant number of Greens that have embraced BDS – and more Greens are
sticking their necks out and choosing sides, thanks in part to the current
crisis. This means that every day we
diminish opportunities for reconciliation – to find a mushy middle, even on an
issue as divisive as BDS.

But I still hold some hope that we may be able to do so,
even if it means that we lose the support of Greens like Weaver. But the fact that Weaver and the B.C. Greens
are facing an election next year makes the task of reconciliation that much
more difficult, because it’s clear that Weaver, at least, has no desire to find
a “mushy middle” at a time when he’d rather be talking to British Columbians
about what the Green Party can do for them, rather than defending Green
candidates from charges of supporting anti-semitism.

My second question is, if the Green Party can somehow keep a
good part of itself together, will it emerge from the end of this exercise as a
political entity that I want to support?
I say “entity” because it may very well be that, while remaining ostensibly
a political Party in name, what comes out of the other side of the civil strife
snake might be unrecognizable as a political party as we view parties
today. If, for example, the party opts
to pursue as a primary goal something other than the election of Greens to
parliament, it will be unclear to me that the appellation of “party” would be
appropriate.

I'm Here for the Climate Change - Cheque, Please!

Ultimately, though, that’s for Greens to decide. The power-struggle is on, and there’s really
no way now to get around this. While I have hopes that the December General
Meeting in Calgary might achieve some sort of compromise on the matter, I can’t
see that happening.

So, I’ll sit and watch and wait for a while longer yet. But ultimately, I’m here for the climate
change and for the democratic reform. If
the vehicle I’ve chosen to invest my time and treasure in ultimately goes off
the rails, I’ll have to look for an alternative form of transport to take me to
the hub of those issues.

(Opinions expressed in this blog are my own, and should not be considered consistent with the policy and/or positions of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)